All we know is that Eich supported one political movement with money. Show me where he has come put publicly as fearing homosexuals.
We are in a dangerous world of viewpoint discrimination. A belief on a particular moral or political issue does not represent the totality of an individual.
We all disagree on things; some of us on things we consider core unalienable rights and values. But at the end of the day, we are also all human beings.
I guess you are arguing semantics here, that you have to be literally afraid of homosexuals to be considered a homophobe. Well—though technically correct—this is not how most people use this word, and you know it. In current speech homophobe is anybody that acts maliciously against an LGBTQ+ person or the LGBTQ+ community as a whole.
He supported at least 2, Prop 8 directly and a politician who opposed Prop 8.
> A belief on a particular moral or political issue does not represent the totality of an individual.
Ahh, ok, so it's perfectly fine to believe that gays should not be allowed to marry while leading a company such as Mozilla?
> We all disagree on things; some of us on things we consider core unalienable rights and values. But at the end of the day, we are also all human beings.
Sorry, no, you don't just get to "disagree" on if I should exist or have rights such as being able to get married.
Absolutely no one is saying you should not exist. I hear this phrase a lot and it's pure religious ideology. Everyone exists. Some people may see you differently than you see yourself, but that doesn't mean they deny you exist. We each exist in our own realities, and part of being good human beings is accepting one another while recognizing those differences in our viewpoints and realities.
> so it's perfectly fine to believe that gays should not be allowed to marry while leading a company such as Mozilla
What kind of company is Mozilla? Is it just about Free Software and an open web? An open web means we need open ideas; and not everyone is going to agree on every idea.
Free software needs to be about keeping the software free. We can't start conflating that with every grievance known to man. There is an underlying connection between Freedom of Speech and Freedom of Software that we've somehow lost along the way.
> He supported at least 2, Prop 8 directly and a politician who opposed Prop 8.
So what? It is literally supporting a political cause. People need to be free to support political causes, even those you may personally disagree with. At one time, supporting gay rights, or saying God didn't exist, or translating the Bible into German were considered horrendous offenses[0]. These people were terrible and those who opposed them were keeping everyone else safe from those corrupt views.
Real freedom means being able to talk about and challenge views without fear of oppression by one's government or community. If we can't talk about and rationally discuss ideas and accept people with different moral compasses than our own, then we're in real trouble.
Freedom of speech includes the freedom to call for your boss to quit, for any reason at all.
> If we can't talk about and rationally discuss ideas and accept people with different moral compasses than our own, then we're in real trouble.
There is little possibility to "rationally discuss ideas" between an employer and an employee. The employer can pretty much ruin the employee's life at will, but even with so many people against Brendan Eich, he seems to be doing pretty well for himself! I'd hardly say that's "oppression by one's community".
I may disagree on forced marriage or animals abuse or use of personal vehicle, these are controversial topics. I may call them slavery, cruelty, greenhouse gas supporters. And that may be better. Invent new words.
Marriage is an old tradition with huge set of semantics and a set of laws. There is a civil marriage, a religious marriage, prenuptial agreement. These days there is no obligation to perform it. Single person can adopt child.
Sam asked interesting question - can one marry his mother? sister? imaginary friend? pet he loves more than any human? his car? Why government has a word on any of these? And if anyone has such relations - don't ask the government. Call it whatever you want. I have had the day of first sight, the day I've proposed the hand and heart, the day I've asked for children and many more, these are the dearest moments. The day of marriage was not that great by comparison.
He hasn't. But he has come out publicly as supporting a campaign which literally called gays "pedophiles" and "sex offenders" in billboard and televised campaign ads.
And Eich made his donation after the Prop 8 campaign started running those ads.
Except it 100% does not and your statement makes absolutely no sense. One is a right you taking away from a group of people you don't agree with and the other doesn't even follow. What? Being against letting minors vote somehow makes you /not/ want to have sex with children? What is that even suppose to mean other than to be an age-old dog-whistle trying to tie homosexuality to pedophilia?
> The point is that marriage as well as voting right is not something you can take away as it exists only as a social construct.
There are a number of groups of people who have felt first-hand that this is simply not true. Both marriage and voting rights have been held back from or taken away from groups of people multiple times.
Now, with the correct understanding of the word "pedophobe" your original statement still doesn't track. You want to equate not allowing gays to marry with not allow <18 year olds to vote as if they are the same concept, they are not. One is taking away a right afforded to their equal counterparts and one is based on not reaching adulthood yet and not being mature enough to make that decision. I sure hope you aren't insinuating that similarly gays are somehow not up to the task of marriage or not mature enough to be trusted with marriage?